Chennai Court August 1964 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: B.T. Pani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ166
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. As far as the second revision petitioner, Kanthamma, who was the third accused in the court of the learned Third Presidency Magistrate, is concerned, I think that the strictly legal argument should prevail that, on the record, the charge against her under Section 7 (1) of Act 104 of 1956 (the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act) has not been established. Section 7 (1) is itself an unusual section, which, unlike other provisions of the statute, makes prostitution per se indictable, and not merely this, it makes it an offence both in respect of the woman or girl who carries on prostitution, and in respect of the person with whom such prostitution is carried on. In the present case, the prosecution has certainly established that any act of prostitution within the premises concerned would amount to the offence under Section 7 (1), because it is within the prohibited distance of a place of public religious worship, the temple in the Srinlvasa-Gan...
P.K.K. Rathinaswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad286; 1965CriLJ47
ORDER(1) The petitioners, the proprietor and the manager, were convicted for an offence under S. 16(7) of the Madras Pawnbrokers Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 by the Sub-Magistrate, Tanjore. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Tanjore.(2) Mr. G. Gopalswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the facts did not disclose an offence under S. 16(7) of the Pawnbrokers Act. P.W. 1 pledged a jewel with the accused for Rs. 10 on 9-1-1961. the jewel was redeemed by one Murugayya on 22-6-1961. P.W. 1 did not take any steps within a period of 1 year and 7 days as required under the Act for redeeming jewels. He attempted to redeem the jewel only on 12-11-1962, when it was informed that Murugayya had redeemed the jewel on 22-6-1961. Learned counsel submitted that under s. 11(1) of the Act, the pledge was redeemable within one year from the date of pawning, exclusive of that day and that there should be added a period o...
Pona Karuppan Ambalam and ors. Vs. S.V.K. Karuppan Ambalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad379
(1) The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing the plaintiffs from their using a channel marked A B C D in the plaint sketch over the lands for the defendants, for a mandatory injunction and other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiffs are the present owners of two survey fields S. Nos. 294/3 and 294/5. They became entitled to the same under three sale-deeds Exs. A-1 to A-3 in the year 1959, and their predecessor-in-title became entitled to the land under assignments by the Government in 1950. Ex. A-6 is an order directing the assignments. It is dated 27th April 1950 and the order states that the lands were temporarily assigned to the persons noted for raising unirrigated dry crop subject to the conditions set out therein. One of the conditions is that there should be no wet cultivation on the lands assigned unless and until the grantee obtains a permit on application to the Executive Engineer, Periyar ...
Akilandammal Vs. S. Balasubramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad539; 1965CriLJ783
(1) This petition is filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 75 of 1958 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam, against the order of the learned District Judge of Madurai directing a complaint to be laid against her offences under Ss. 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code.(2) The respondent herein filed O. S. 75 of 1958 on the foot of a mortgage dated 10-4-1945 for Rs. 2150 executed in his favour by the petitioner herein. The petitioner put forward a receipt Ex. B.1 for a sum of Rs. 2000 on 9-4-1958 as evidencing payment of that amount towards the mortgage. The trial court held that the receipt Ex. B.1 was a forged document. The petitioner, who examined herself as a witness, stated that Ex. B.1 was a forged document. The petitioner, who examined herself as a witness, stated that Ex.B.1 was a genuine receipt given to her by the respondent. The two attestors to the receipt Ex. B.1 and the scribe also gave evidence in support of the genuineness of Ex. B.1 but we are not conce...
Sriram Cotton Pressing Factory (P) Ltd. Vs. K.E. Narayanaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad352
(1) This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the appellant and the question involved is whether he is entitled to the relief which he claims.(2) The facts that led to the institution of the suit may be briefly referred to. It appears that the plaintiff appellant, a private company called Messrs. Shree Ram Cotton Pressing Factory, Ltd., having its registered office at Bombay, entered into an agreement of sale on 26-1-1957 with the defendant to purchase five acres of land in S. F. Nos. 424, 425 and 412 in the village of Souripalayam, Coimbatore taluk, at Rs. 7,500 per acre. The plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 as advance to the defendant. The land agreed to be purchased was for the purpose of constructing a cotton pressing and ginning factory, which the defendant knew even at the time of the agreement, but before the construction could be made, it was necessary that the area should be declared as an industrial area. Originally the time fixed for comp...
A.R. HussaIn Khan Vs. Register of Companies, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad307; 1965CriLJ104
(1) This petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the IVth Presidency Magistrate, G. Y. Madras. The lower court found that the petitioner submitted certain records to the Registrar of Companies with some particulars knowing them to be false and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 50 a on each of the counts. The facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows: the petitioner was appointed as Managing Director by a special resolution of the company on 10-6-1956. He made an application to the Government of India for approval of his appointment as managing director under S. 269 of the Companies Act, in form No. 25. The Government of India called on the petitioner to produce the audited accounts of the company. But the petitioner declined to produce them as according to him, the documents called for need not be produced under S. 269. There was protracted correspondent bet...
The State of Madras Vs. Bomas Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC819(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The assessee Messrs Bomas Limited are a firm of advertising agents. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road, Madras, assessed them for the year 1959-60. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to a part of the turnover. While disposing of the appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the turnover by a certain amount, and included therein what the assessee had described in their bills as art charges and translation charges'. The amount so added came to Rs. 14,650-92. The assessee appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, disputing this addition. His contention was that for the customers, who came to him for advice in the matter of advertisement, he supplied ideas and sketches and also words to be used for advertisement purposes. Thereafter the nature of the design of the advertisement was settled between the customer and the assessee. If the customer so required, the assessee also placed an order in accordan...
P. Puthoorvana Rawther Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC903(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner before us is a dealer in raw hides and skins, tanning barks, myrobalams and other articles in Dindigul. During 1959-60, he showed a turnover of Rs. 2,45,878 and odd relating to myrobalam. The sales fell before 1st October, 1960. During the period prior to that date, which includes the period of assessment, the provision for single point levy in item 59 of the First Schedule of Madras Act I of 1959, read thus:Wattle bark including dyeing and tanning materials-at the point of last purchase in the State-at 3 per cent.2. After 1 st October, 1960, this item was amended as:Wattle bark, avaram bark, konnam bark, wattle extract, quobracho and chestnut extract-at the point of last purchase in the State-at 1 per cent.3. It is common ground that the assessee sold the above quantity of myrobalam to tanners in the State. The view of the department was that since myrobalam could also be used for medicinal purposes and also for making of ink, it could not come under ...
In Re : Muthuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ830
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Salem, arises out of an order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem, directing the detention of P.W. 1 for a period of one year.2. In S.C. No. 84 of 1963 one Kumari Ammani was examined as P.W. 1. The case against the accused in that case was that he kidnapped P.W. 1, an offence punishable under Section 366, I.P.C. During the trial, on 19.8.1963, the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge sent P.W. 1 to the Vigilance Rescue Centre, Vidyalaya Road, Salem. She was detained there for 3 days. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge referred to the refusal of P.W. 1 to go to her parents' house and to her insistence to go with the accused, and ordered that she should be kept in the Vigilance Home for a period of one year The provision of law under which the committal was made was not referred. The Chief Inspector; of Approved Schools and Vigilance Service, Royapettah High Road, Madras, referred ...
S R Ramakrishnan Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dharapuram, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR281(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byRAMAKRISHNAN J. - In this case, the assessee had granted a lease for the cultivation of his agricultural lands to certain lessees. A certain portion of the arrears of lease due for the period 1951-52 to 1955-56 about Rs. 3,000 and odd was received by him during the period 16th July, 1956, to 15th July, 1957. It is common ground that this last mentioned period is the first 'previous year' for the assessment of the agricultural income of the assessee after the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act (after the amendment of the Act in 1958) came into force with effect from April 1, 1958. Section 2(t) of the Act defines 'previous year' as meaning 'the twelve months ending on the 31st day of March next preceding the year for which the assessment is to be made or if the accounts of the assessee have been made up to a date within the said twelve months, in respect of any year ending on any date other than the said 31st day of March, then at the option of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »